Cognitive Dissonance and T-shirts
A few months ago I saw the movie "The Motorcycle Diaries" which chronicles the South American travels of a young Ernesto "Che" Guevara before he became radicalized and immortalized as a revolutionary. The movie was wonderfully crafted and although (as you will see) I am not a fan of Guevara, I was not terribly bothered (except perhaps one scene at the very end) by the fact that movie tended to paint him in a favorable light. Afer all, people change and it is likely that Guevara's character at 24 years of age was significantly different in some very crucial respects than it was in his later ideologically radicalized years.
However, I was disturbed to learn that "El Che" has become somewhat of a pop icon of the Left. His image is sold on T-shirts and other paraphernalia. He is held up as a hero for social justice even though his actions resulted in anything but justice. The more I thought about this the more disturbed I became and I had meant to write a post about it, but I never got around to it until now. The two triggering events: A blog that I regularly read made a reference to Guevara in light of South American resistance to the on-going Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) discussions. Then a few hours later I listened to an NPR story which reported that the massive anti-U.S. protests lead by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez featured large banners of Che Guevara.
In the words of Dennis Miller... I feel a rant coming on.
I understand that to many people that the mythology of Che Guevara may be overshadowing the realities of his legacy. On the surface he represents the South American fight for "revolution" and social justice in the 1960s, but again the reality of his actions speak differently.
He was a ideologue, a totalitarian and a murderer who ultimately suppressed human rights. I cannot fathom that his "cause" or "good intentions" can be seen an excuse. Every tyrant believes their cause is just.
In Cuba as Fidel Castro's right hand man, Guevara personally oversaw (fired the shots many times himself ) the execution of thousands at Havana's "paredon" - the bloody wall where ordinary citizens were murdered without due process for the simple crime of being suspected hostile to a take over of their country (whether or not Batista was a criminal or not does not justify welcoming totalitarian rule). For these actions he earned the nickname "The Butcher of La Cabaña".
Those on the Left are rightly appalled at the U.S. policy of detaining prisoners at Guantanamo without the right of counsel. Yet, how can they not be appalled by Guevara who once said: "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary... These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is revolution and a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate"? Not to be overly sensationalistic, but I should point out that the executions were public to maximize terror and often times performed in front of friends and family of the victim. To wear a Che Guevara T-shirt while protesting the U.S. policy towards detainees is an example of cognitive dissonance at its most ludicrous.
Che Guevara also oversaw the creation of prison and labor camps (again without due process) for dissidents and homosexuals and even a special camp for delinquent Cuban youths who among other acts of "delinquency" enjoyed listening to rock and roll. Social justice? Freedom of expression? Hardly. This irony was apparently lost on musician Carlos Santana who, caught up in the hype, thought it would be chic to wear a Guevara T-shirt to the 2005 Academy Awards. I assume (giving Santana the benefit of the doubt) that he did not realize that in 1960's Cuba because of Guevara, youths had to hide out and risk imprisonment to listen to his music which Guevara would have characterized as "imperialist".
Guevara was also in favor of massive industrialism on the scale of the Soviet Union -- he was not concerned with the environment or anything else that today's Left would sympathize with. Indeed the anti-nuke Left should be appalled by Guevara who told a British communist paper just after the Soviet nuclear missles were removed from Cuba that "If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York".
Much has been made of the fact that the CIA aided Bolivia in their assassination of Guevara. But it was Bolivia that wanted him dead. The revolution he was trying to lead in Bolivia did not recruit a single Bolivian peasant. Instead it was supported by tens of thousands ideologically blinded youth who left their Latin American Universities. As Paul Berman wrote in Slate, in the end he accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.
In Cuba, his legacy (helped by the inane U.S. embargo) has created nothing but human misery. The state is totalitarian, the people do not have rights. Again, how is that about social justice? How is that about freeing people from the yoke of an oppressive state?
Che Guevara embodies the worst of what humans can become, no different than other ideological or religious extremists that have plagued history, i.e someone motivated by simple ideals, with an absolute belief in their certainty who is willing to do anything to bring their ideological (and not subject to free inquiry) vision to fruition. He wrote: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become". Again, not to sound repetitive, but I don't understand what that has to do with any humanistic, liberal or progressive ideas.
I apologize if this has taken a polemic tone (perhaps I am guilty of my own objection of not sounding rational), but the Left's fondness of Guevara is a pet peeve of mine. I think it demonstrates the type of ignorance that plaques both the Left and Right today - that ability to overly simplify someone as a hero or a villain simply because he or she is simplistically identified with one side or the other.
We have a very dangerous and childish tendency to view things as black and white. If one side is good the other must be bad. The reality is far more complex and nuanced. Almost all human conflicts whether between brothers, neighbors or nations suffer from this lack of objectivity.
We need to think rationally and with nuance and be capable of equal opportunity criticism. With Guevara I could never understand the pop culture appeal (could it be due to one glamorous photograph?) given a record that betrays everything the Left claims to stand for. But again, like religious figures and overly romanticized heroes, myth often supercedes reality - especially when the followers go to great lengths to remain blinded by ideology.
(P.S. this post in an expansion of comments I left on another blog)
However, I was disturbed to learn that "El Che" has become somewhat of a pop icon of the Left. His image is sold on T-shirts and other paraphernalia. He is held up as a hero for social justice even though his actions resulted in anything but justice. The more I thought about this the more disturbed I became and I had meant to write a post about it, but I never got around to it until now. The two triggering events: A blog that I regularly read made a reference to Guevara in light of South American resistance to the on-going Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) discussions. Then a few hours later I listened to an NPR story which reported that the massive anti-U.S. protests lead by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez featured large banners of Che Guevara.
In the words of Dennis Miller... I feel a rant coming on.
I understand that to many people that the mythology of Che Guevara may be overshadowing the realities of his legacy. On the surface he represents the South American fight for "revolution" and social justice in the 1960s, but again the reality of his actions speak differently.
He was a ideologue, a totalitarian and a murderer who ultimately suppressed human rights. I cannot fathom that his "cause" or "good intentions" can be seen an excuse. Every tyrant believes their cause is just.
In Cuba as Fidel Castro's right hand man, Guevara personally oversaw (fired the shots many times himself ) the execution of thousands at Havana's "paredon" - the bloody wall where ordinary citizens were murdered without due process for the simple crime of being suspected hostile to a take over of their country (whether or not Batista was a criminal or not does not justify welcoming totalitarian rule). For these actions he earned the nickname "The Butcher of La Cabaña".
Those on the Left are rightly appalled at the U.S. policy of detaining prisoners at Guantanamo without the right of counsel. Yet, how can they not be appalled by Guevara who once said: "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary... These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is revolution and a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate"? Not to be overly sensationalistic, but I should point out that the executions were public to maximize terror and often times performed in front of friends and family of the victim. To wear a Che Guevara T-shirt while protesting the U.S. policy towards detainees is an example of cognitive dissonance at its most ludicrous.
Che Guevara also oversaw the creation of prison and labor camps (again without due process) for dissidents and homosexuals and even a special camp for delinquent Cuban youths who among other acts of "delinquency" enjoyed listening to rock and roll. Social justice? Freedom of expression? Hardly. This irony was apparently lost on musician Carlos Santana who, caught up in the hype, thought it would be chic to wear a Guevara T-shirt to the 2005 Academy Awards. I assume (giving Santana the benefit of the doubt) that he did not realize that in 1960's Cuba because of Guevara, youths had to hide out and risk imprisonment to listen to his music which Guevara would have characterized as "imperialist".
Guevara was also in favor of massive industrialism on the scale of the Soviet Union -- he was not concerned with the environment or anything else that today's Left would sympathize with. Indeed the anti-nuke Left should be appalled by Guevara who told a British communist paper just after the Soviet nuclear missles were removed from Cuba that "If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York".
Much has been made of the fact that the CIA aided Bolivia in their assassination of Guevara. But it was Bolivia that wanted him dead. The revolution he was trying to lead in Bolivia did not recruit a single Bolivian peasant. Instead it was supported by tens of thousands ideologically blinded youth who left their Latin American Universities. As Paul Berman wrote in Slate, in the end he accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.
In Cuba, his legacy (helped by the inane U.S. embargo) has created nothing but human misery. The state is totalitarian, the people do not have rights. Again, how is that about social justice? How is that about freeing people from the yoke of an oppressive state?
Che Guevara embodies the worst of what humans can become, no different than other ideological or religious extremists that have plagued history, i.e someone motivated by simple ideals, with an absolute belief in their certainty who is willing to do anything to bring their ideological (and not subject to free inquiry) vision to fruition. He wrote: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become". Again, not to sound repetitive, but I don't understand what that has to do with any humanistic, liberal or progressive ideas.
I apologize if this has taken a polemic tone (perhaps I am guilty of my own objection of not sounding rational), but the Left's fondness of Guevara is a pet peeve of mine. I think it demonstrates the type of ignorance that plaques both the Left and Right today - that ability to overly simplify someone as a hero or a villain simply because he or she is simplistically identified with one side or the other.
We have a very dangerous and childish tendency to view things as black and white. If one side is good the other must be bad. The reality is far more complex and nuanced. Almost all human conflicts whether between brothers, neighbors or nations suffer from this lack of objectivity.
We need to think rationally and with nuance and be capable of equal opportunity criticism. With Guevara I could never understand the pop culture appeal (could it be due to one glamorous photograph?) given a record that betrays everything the Left claims to stand for. But again, like religious figures and overly romanticized heroes, myth often supercedes reality - especially when the followers go to great lengths to remain blinded by ideology.
(P.S. this post in an expansion of comments I left on another blog)
posted by Alan at 12:14 PM | Permalink |
SITE FEED (XML) 
1 Comments:
Excellent post.
Post a Comment
<< Home